Why we should resist the idea of student as consumer

What are the consequences of the marketisation of higher education in England? Our consumerist society may get the education it deserves, but will it be the education it really wants or needs?

In a marketised consumerist culture,
it is not surprising that many students arrive on campus as well-tuned
consumers. Their wealth of experience in commercial markets has shaped much of
the way they respond to their desires, to opportunity, and to choices they
face. They have adopted, as Erich
Fromm put it, a ‘marketing personality’. As part of this baggage bought
with them to university, students widely buy into the idea of consumer
sovereignty.

Often inadvertently this stance acts to reduce the potential value
that studying at degree level can offer. For example many students will opt to
satisfy whimsical personal tastes and preferences rather than immerse
themselves into the angst of deep learning. Instead of the university being a
space to reflect on this culture, recent moves wrapped up in the funding
changes, means the university is now supposed fully to embrace this consumer
culture.

It is perhaps no surprise. Democratically
elected governments inevitably seek to maintain sufficient public support to
retain power. It follows that the general public through their expressed
political will (or lack of it) are in part responsible for a market-oriented HE
sector. Top-up fees and other private sector initiatives in HE can seem to
reduce the burden of public spending and so forms part of a larger discourse
advocating lower tax and less direct government involvement. Society gets the
higher education it deserves. But will it get the higher education it really
wants or needs?

The core
purpose of this article is to reflect on the consequences (often unintentional)
for the HE sector of the demands to make it responsive to market drivers. A major
reason that government and institutional management turned to markets as an
organising principle was because they seem to hold, as an assumed fact, that expansion
of the sector - particularly at the speed policy-makers required - could only be achieved in this way. To
governments, such expansion seems like a requirement if the economy is to
remain globally competitive. Hence fees in order to help fund expansion and make
students feel that they are paying for a service; league tables to make the
product offering transparent to consumers (or customers); performance-related
pay to ensure that staff deliver the required service. This leads to a key
point that I want to make: that the very process of becoming marketised in
order to achieve specific objectives significantly shapes what an expanded
higher education sector actually becomes. Lurking in this are many unintended
or accidental consequences.

Market-driven
HE results in education that places too much value on speed and not enough on time
to reflect. It looks to use economic criteria such as ‘added value’ to judge
worthiness where such a measure is not only difficult to measure but distracts
from good learning. It creates environments where growth for growth’s sake
perpetuates the need for ever more marketisation. And, most importantly, it produces
an environment where the idea that students consume a service is widely
accepted.

The most
significant set of tensions created by marketisation exists between the expectations
of students as consumers (the rather simplistic mantra of ’customer is king’)
and requirements and expectations placed on them in their role as student
learners (where they simply cannot be lord of all they survey).

What may
seem a positive move to ‘put
the student at the heart of the system’ within a market-oriented context,
means accepting and even pandering to consumerist attitudes and behaviour of
students who increasingly see it as their right to get what they want from a HE
sector as if it is like any other service industry (a holiday, bank account, or
restaurant, for example). What could possibly be risky in putting the ‘student
at the centre’ of the university’s activities? Well if it’s a populist ruse to
distract from other issues like under-funding, then a lot. The real dangers
will take place if and when this drive to a marketised HE is successful and the
student is transformed into the consumer of degree level products. Why? Because
that will mean tutors and scholars will have been changed into service
providers.

Just imagine
for a moment what the consumer student body might begin to want and desire;
note I have not used the term ‘need’ as ‘desire’ and ‘want’ are the more
appropriate consumerist terms.

A focus on what’s currently in vogue that largely ignores the
bigger picture and neglects a rounded perspective and the longer term view of
what might be important?

Less effort directed at producing research papers and ‘going
off’ to conferences so that the tutors can be more readily available – what
fills the libraries of the future will be for others to puzzle over.

Getting the certificate (with the 2:1 badge stamped on it in
big bold letters) never mind that such a focus inevitably reduces the value of
the very certificate because less effort is placed on the pleasure and value of
learning for learning sake.

Extra work beyond the classroom kept to a minimum please –
after all many students have other jobs they have to do in order to get
disposable cash, and as for non-assessed work...!

Complexity, ambiguity, challenge...hold on a minute they are
paying for this, and their future career now depends even more on the results.
So actually can we have simplicity and clarity, particularly when it really
matters (assessment).

Horizons closely aligned with the first job acquisition – so
placements on demand would be useful, as would more training in interview
techniques and the like. But the opportunity cost is both a limited range of
knowledge and understanding dictated by current industry practice, and even
less time spent on developing critical faculties – they very ‘ability’ most
useful in a world full of uncertainty, ambiguity and opacity. Put another way, by responding to
student customer wishes, the opportunity for the student to be transformed as a
person are limited or even lost.

Why should we respond to these market-led
changes to the university? HE remains primarily publicly funded; it belongs to us all as citizens. As such we should tolerate
nothing less than the social and cultural value of the University to be as
important as the economic. The quality of learning must not be sacrificed for
other consumerist objectives since pedagogic quality is a fundamental feature
of university education. There is no point to growth in student numbers or in
more ‘market share’ of applicants, or brighter cafeterias, or higher leaguer
table positions, unless such things feed into enhancing the university as a
place for young adults to mature.

If you want
to share your views on this topic why not register and come along to a debate
about the ‘Politicisation of Higher Education’. Monday December 5th 1-5pm at the Houses of Parliament. Click here to register for this event.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Support our campaign into #darkmoney

Theresa May is desperately clinging to power, relying on the DUP, the hard-right party that has blocked same-sex marriage, and kept abortion illegal.

Worse still, they're bankrolled by dark money – we've exposed the shady group behind their lavish pro-Brexit campaigning, but they're still refusing to name their secret donors. Now they hold the balance of power at Westminster, it's even more vital that we find out who their paymasters are.